The national culture implies a set of assumptions, beliefs, and values shared by members of an ethnic community that significantly determine their understanding of the world, as well as their behavior in it. Dean Duda says that, in an attempt to define culture, we can always start from Latin etymology, Cicero’s contribution in expanding the scope of the term, enlightened or romantic ideas and divisions between the civilization and culture, Herder, Gustav Klemm and Jacob Burckhardt, biology and agronomy, the critical overview offered by Alfred Louis Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, or the network-semiotic definition of Clifford Geertz, and then develop our own operational explanation [4, 236].

National culture, with its assumptions and values, determines the manner in which the members of the organization interpret the reality around them, and the manner in which they behave in this reality. For this reason, we can assume that national culture influences the manner in which organizations are changing, and that the agreement of the national culture and organizational change strategies will lead to greater efficiency of the change process. [6, 3; 3]. I. O. Arzanova writes that ethnic culture is a culture of people related to the common origin and coexistence [1].

All members of the nation do not equally participate in the construction of national culture. A wealthier class of the nation, which is often politically and nationally engaged, has a prominent role in this activity, as well as the persons who actively participate in it, such as artists. One of the most important foundations for action and material assistance in the construction of national culture is based on the nationalistic interpretation of patriotism. The characteristics of patriotism have changed over time. The basic ideas of patriotism are found in the ancient world and relate to the individual who is willing to sacrifice himself on behalf of the wider community. Over time, patriotism has taken the characteristics of the society, in which it is nurtured. In the Serbs, Dositej Obradovic, among the first ones, calls for a patriotic act [8].

The concept of national culture is linked to the state, i.e. to the constitution of the people in a political society. It grows upon the affirmation of economic, political, territorial and ethnic unity that is expressed as political independence and economic sovereignty. In this framework, the cultural heritage, the national language of literature, art and other cultural values are affirmed. The concept of national culture, in this sense, cannot be equated with the concept of folk culture, which includes the culture of folk, populated agglomerations, i.e. the widest levels of society, which is significantly different from the culture of social and spiritual elite [7].

During the nineteenth century, patriotism was seen as one of the incentives for the development of art. The adoption of the idea of ​​patriotism was expressed through patronage or sponsor activities. In Serbian history, many figures were patrons of art. For centuries, sponsor and patronage acts had a strong social meaning. They expressed the greatness of the individual and publicly expressed and affirmed their position in the community. The act of patronage belonged to financially most powerful circles, the court, the nobility and the church hierarchy [8, 21]. Many churches and shrines were built by the rulers themselves as their endowments, in order to preserve the strength of the national spirit among the people. Among them, the most famous patrons of art were Stefan Nemanja and others. During the nineteenth century, many benefactors of national culture referred to the older, historical role models. A change in the social image of the European society and the material rise of the citizenry widened the circle of patrons. In the construction of national art, national institutions had an important role, especially the state and all its segments. The state was able to, through various activities, encourage the development of national culture. It controlled the activities that took place in it, but it also financed the development of national culture. The state became one of the most important pillars of the implementation of national programs in all areas, as well as in culture. The cultural policy of the state had a great influence and a wide range of operations. It was able to, by means of legal provisions and the operation of government ministries, clearly determine the development of national art. The work of the Serbian state in the construction of national culture was carried out in several directions. One of the basic forms of state intervention was legal regulations and the control of public, and cultural and artistic life. The state was able to, by special request, initiate and direct the flow of national art, and its operations were conducted through the relevant ministries and specially formed committees [8, 25].

The decisions of the Serbian state influenced the conception of art and culture in the state, so the Law on Ecclesiastical Authorities of 1862 passed a provision that the Orthodox churches be constructed in the Byzantine style, and in this way, the legislation largely determined the future, highly nationalized course of sacral architecture. The influence of the Serbian state in the construction of national culture followed the patriotic state practice in the new century. The development of state patronage of national art in Serbia followed the flow of internal events. The significance of the ruler, in many periods of the nineteenth century, was crucial for all political events, and the operation of the ruler bore, with the ruler’s propaganda, state symbols, as well. This was particularly prominent during the first reign of Prince Milos. He was one of the biggest patrons and founders of Serbian culture. In his time, the Treasury financed the construction and decoration of many church buildings. The state had a special role in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, at the time when art became one of the accepted means of emphasizing the Serbian state in foreign policy. Then, the state bore the costs of preparation and organization of the participation of Serbia in the Yugoslav and world exhibitions and gave strong support to the development of the Yugoslav artistic concept through funding exhibitions, participation of Serbian artists, and purchasing works of art [8].

During this time, a verbal emphasis of the national was accompanied by a pictorial representation of national saints on the iconostasis and in mural painting. In Serbia, such a process can be traced back to the murals of Karadjordje’s Endowment in Topola. On the altar, in the diaconicon, Saint Sava and Simeon were painted, which was a program term of aspirations for the creation of a national hierarchy. The national in Serbian churches was strongly emphasized after achieving national church organization in the Principality of Serbia and the 1848 revolution. Then, the national became a very important program content in Serbian ecclesiastical painting. Dimitrije Avramovic, on the iconostasis in the Cathedral Church in Belgrade, which became one of the most important models in the Serbian painting, painted the icon St. Nicholas returns the sight to King Stephen of Decani [9, 73].

According to N. Makuljevic, in the development of national culture, the capital of Serbia, Belgrade, had a prominent role. Through numerous activities, it excelled itself as the center of cultural life of Serbia, Serbian people, and all the South Slavs. Some of the activities of the Belgrade municipality were related to building public national monuments. Belgrade, as the capital, participated in funding works, such as the monuments to Joseph Pancic and Dositej Obradovic. Later, national culture and arts were consolidated through the development of artistic educational institutions in the Serbs [8, 27; 5].

The Serbs, at the time of strengthening their state and national unity, also worked on strengthening national culture and national art. During this period related to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, these essential elements of the Serbian national identity were strengthened, experiencing one of the biggest successes in modern Serbian history.

1. Аржанова И.О. Этническая культура как особый тип культуры, ее особенности // Современные научные исследования и инновации. 2014. № 11 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2014/11/40517 (дата обращения: 09.12.2014).
2. Bazić M. Identitet i kulturno nasleđe Srba. Belgrade, 2007.
3. Hofstede G.  Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 2001.
4. Dean D. Nadziranje značenja: što je kultura u kulturalnim studijama. Reč, magazine for literature, culture and social issues, 64, 10, 2001, 235-253
5. Elezovic Z.M. A retrospective view on the beginnings of modern art education among the Serbs // Psychology, sociology and pedagogy. 2014. № 12 [Electronic journal]. URL: http://psychology.snauka.ru/en/2014/12/4194
6. Janićijević N. Uloga nacionalne kulture u izboru strategije promena u organizacijama Ekonomski horizonti, January – April 2014, Volume 16, Booklet 1, 3-15.
7. Koković D. Pukotine culture. Novi Sad, 2005.
8. Makuljević N. Umetnost i nacionalna ideja u XIX veku: sistem evropske i srpske vizuelne kulture u službi nacije. Belgrade, 2006.
9. Makuljević N. Crkvena umetnost u Kraljevini Srbiji (1882-1914). Belgrade, 2007.
10. Tošić D. Jugoslovenske umetničke izložbe 1904-1927. Belgrade, 1983.

Все статьи автора «Элэзович Звездана Милутин»